Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Casual Shinji]

Basically coincidence. Something new and rare can blow up if there is already a huge latent potential for accepntance in the population. Then it becomes a new icon.

But when media tries to change the audience, it always fails. People want validation, not disagreement.

Yes, but chasing and setting is in this context basically the same thing. Just because the media often fails at trying to bring something into popularity doesn't mean they don't succeed just as much.

And saying that media trying to change the audience always fails is very hyperbolic. Media is one of the most inescapable facets of everyday life. Just this fact - how inescapable it is - shapes people.

 

[Terminal Blue]

For example, there is a body positivity movement but fat men, and fat women are of low value in dating for most people as a general rule of thumb(I am not fat, but guys tend to judge women on weight more than women do on men, but that's also changing against men as well),

The "body positivity movement" is just an organic online trend. The average American is overweight, it's only natural that when the majority of people don't fit a societal standard there will be some pushback against that standard. That said, most fat acceptance stuff I see isn't really about weight at all, it's a response to the weird dehumanization of specifically fat women, especially fat ethnic minority women, within mainstream culture. If the goal was to try and decieve people into thinking being fat was socially desirable, then it immediately fails because a fat acceptance movement only makes sense if fat people are not otherwise accepted.

Also height is something else that there is a contradiction to. Short men and somewhat tall women are of low value in the dating market and corporate world. But you wouldn't believe that if you saw progressive media, and ESG-backed social media doing trends like short kings, etc.

Again, you are mistaking an organic response to an existing societal trend with an attempt to deceive people. The whole "short kings" thing is a joke primarily driven by short men. Short men kind of just have to get over the fact that they don't measure up (heh) to prevailing societal standards, and one way to deal with it is to laugh at it. Because actually, the inverse is also true. While height is correlated with a lot of positive benefits, the whole "men need to be over 6 foot to be attractive" thing is driven by a small number of women who have tricked everyone into thinking their fetish is normal. While many women have a preference for partners taller than them, the average woman is around 5'4.

Yes, people are different, but people will praise Mental Health Day while seeking people who are mentally well. So it's a contradiction.

See, this is the weirdest one because it's mental health day. It's not a celebration of mental illness.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I seriously doubt that.

Sure, beauty ideals change all the time. But the media chase trends, they don't make them. Hollywood took slim actresses because slim = beautiful was already established. Sure, media tends to reinforce existing notion by endlessly repeating them or even exaggerating them (like with the models) but that's it.

I don't think there's really anyone that finds the unhealthy, super thin model look as attractive. I kinda feel like the model industry decided that themselves or the clothes just look/flow better on thin models, which is really what is being shown off is the clothes. I like petite women myself but looking unhealthy (in either direction) is not attractive.

 

[Silvanus]

Do you not agree that insulin resistance is a required path to diabetes? Do you not agree that the study shows excess sugar causing the liver to produce that causes insulin resistance?

Whether I do or not isn't relevant. Because those things aren't the same as the claim you made, which I'm asking you to provide sources for.

Where are your sources for the claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes?

Just say if you can't find any.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Whether I do or not isn't relevant. Because those things aren't the same as the claim you made, which I'm asking you to provide sources for.

Where are your sources for the claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes?

Just say if you can't find any.

I did via the transitive property and used sources as proof for everything.

This all stems from the fact that I care about mechanisms and then you said you provided a mechanism for fat causing diabetes and I said you forgot about insulin resistance. Then I provided the mechanism that causes insulin resistance (directly linked to sugar) and insulin resistance is a requirement for diabetes. If A=B and B=C, then A=C (sugar = diabetes).

Listen. You explicitly said that a mechanism between obesity and diabetes has not been established. I've now provided a direct, explicit academic source pointing to the mechanism. Acknowledge it.

You're forgetting the insulin resistance part of it. Your body's cells stop actually taking in the insulin and this happens before you pancreas gets visceral fat around it to where it has trouble/can't produce enough insulin.

 

[Silvanus]

I did via the transitive property and used sources as proof for everything.

I'm not interested in what you've concluded from these things, because I don't value your opinion. The experts and researchers did not reach the conclusion you did. On the contrary, we have >6 expett sources here directly contradicting your conclusion.

If your conclusion was sound, you'd expect at least one actual authoritative source to corroborate it. Wouldn't you? Because otherwise its just amateur supposition.

So: Where are your sources for the claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes?

Just say if you can't find any.

 

[Gergar12]

OK, it took me a while to reply to this, because I've been trying to think of the words to get my point across in one go. I don't really feel like a full debate, but I also want to make any point I have clear enough where I stand without one.

Your argument seems to be that media should not reflect reality, and should be an ideal that is lived up to. An escape from reality. I have several issues with that concept.

The first is that your version of an escape from reality is one where everyone looks attractive (which generally means women with STONKING GREAT TITS, and men with enough muscles that when they flex, their biceps have their own biceps), where the average protagonist is a grizzled white man with nothing to lose and a gravelly voice spitting out one-liners. That implies that the real world with varying races, body shapes, and so on is worse than one where everyone looks the same, and men are manly men and women are damsels to be saved and "reward" their savior. After all, if it was the other way around, it wouldn't be much of an escape from reality, would it?

The second issue is that media has an influence on expectations. You talk about how society is going a different way from how progressive organizations are trying to go, and there's a contradiction there. You are right, but what you don't seem to be considering is how society decided that short men were less attractive than taller men, that women who are too strong in personality are "bitches". That didn't just come out of the ether. Hell, if you go back to the Victorian era, plump women were considered the hot ticket, because that weight meant that they were able to eat in excess, and therefore were better off financially than a skinny woman who clearly couldn't afford to feed herself properly.

What changed? The perception of what made women attractive. And what could have possibly influenced that perception? Could it be things like Barbie dolls, Hollywood actresses that could lose their roles for gaining too much weight, models that were giving themselves eating disorders to maintain a dangerously slender frame? Media can easily influence how people perceive things in the real world. If we want, for example, people who have mental illnesses to be less stigmatized, having media not stigmatizing them is a very logical place to start. It won't happen overnight, but it has to happen. The only other option is to just shrug, say "that's just the way it is", and having the problem fester. That is not the option I'm willing to accept. If you are pleased with the status quo, that's all well and good, and I won't try to argue that you are wrong for that. I'm not happy with the status quo, however, and welcome efforts to change it.

'The first is that your version of an escape from reality is one where everyone looks attractive (which generally means women with STONKING GREAT TITS, and men with enough muscles that when they flex, their biceps have their own biceps), where the average protagonist is a grizzled white man with nothing to lose and a gravelly voice spitting out one-liners. That implies that the real world with varying races, body shapes, and so on is worse than one where everyone looks the same, and men are manly men and women are damsels to be saved and "reward" their savior. After all, if it was the other way around, it wouldn't be much of an escape from reality, would it?'

Protagonists can be of all races, and that is fine as long as the gameplay loop is good, and the character doesn't look bad and out of shape. Women can be tough too that is fine as long as they look good. Damsels can be either race. I liked the character in Forspoken even if I wished she had longer hair but her face looks pretty good I just don't like the OpenCritic score, which scared me off.

Body shapes I do have a problem with. I don't want to see it and I guess people don't want that reflected in gaming either. It's not healthy to be overweight period, end of story, and it's an effect of high fructose corn syrup subsidies to appease corn farmers in states like Iowa. It's funny I remember reading a political science article where political leaders in more urban districts were against the farm bill before the 2000s, and I thought I would rather not rely on another country for my food, but now I know why they did it. Does that mean we need to be like China where fresh food is the norm no. We need frozen foods too, but I would rather we switch back to real fats, and real sugar vs HFCS.

Media shouldn't influence expectations in terms of gaming or TV media unless it's meant to be a super realistic show. You're not a knight, you're not a soldier in space, your not a starship pilot. Also if that were the case most animes, games, etc. would have to be remade or deleted.I want AAA games where there is a strong escape from reality. Not where people look like on Earth a bunch of varying body shapes, sad and depressed, working a 9-5 at one or two jobs like me(Granted my second job is easier and is remote), no one has kids, and there is a war in Gaza that is killing more children per day than the Holocaust.

I also do not like people trying to look like anime characters and K-pop. That's not healthy since you use chemicals on your face to look younger. Plastic surgery is used too much, and I hope breast implants don't hurt people's spines. Granted I get these young women are trying to attract men who like that stuff. If you have a healthy BMI that is good enough. I also don't think losing weight is achievable quickly without pills but that's mostly what some people do.

No the status quo is not fine, and I do try to change it, but I prefer my games not to be a depressing mirror of real life.

 

[Elijin]

That implies that the real world with varying races, body shapes, and so on is worse than one where everyone looks the same, and men are manly men and women are damsels to be saved and "reward" their savior. After all, if it was the other way around, it wouldn't be much of an escape from reality, would it?'

No, no it does not.

So many genres of film, books and games would not exist under your version of escapism.

Dammit I engaged with the Gergar12 while his tin foil hat is on full display, bad me, bad!

 

[Satinavian]

No, no it does not.

So many genres of film, books and games would not exist under your version of escapism.

Dammit I engaged with the Gergar12 while his tin foil hat is on full display, bad me, bad!

That was Gergar12 quoting the bobmaster and then disagreeing with exactly that, not actually his opinion.

@Gergar12
You should repair your post. Something with the quotes is very wrong.

 

[thebobmaster]

No, no it does not.

So many genres of film, books and games would not exist under your version of escapism.

Dammit I engaged with the Gergar12 while his tin foil hat is on full display, bad me, bad!

As Satinavian said, that wasn't Gergar's opinion, he was quoting me. And what I was trying to say, if it wasn't clear, is that I felt Gergar was implying that a setting where only hot people are allowed to exist is better than the reality where all sorts of people exist. Because it wouldn't be "escapism" if you didn't see it as an improvement over reality.

 

[Elijin]

As Satinavian said, that wasn't Gergar's opinion, he was quoting me. And what I was trying to say, if it wasn't clear, is that I felt Gergar was implying that a setting where only hot people are allowed to exist is better than the reality where all sorts of people exist. Because it wouldn't be "escapism" if you didn't see it as an improvement over reality.

Well, escapism doesn't need to be an improvement over reality, simply an alternative to the individual's reality. So that initial assumption is a flawed building block.

 

[Trunkage]

I seriously doubt that.

Sure, beauty ideals change all the time. But the media chase trends, they don't make them. Hollywood took slim actresses because slim = beautiful was already established. Sure, media tends to reinforce existing notion by endlessly repeating them or even exaggerating them (like with the models) but that's it.

You get that the Holllywood 80s style movie of muscular men and big breast women were following a minority

Right?

 

[Gergar12]

That was Gergar12 quoting the bobmaster and then disagreeing with exactly that, not actually his opinion.

@Gergar12
You should repair your post. Something with the quotes is very wrong.

No I am just lazy I don’t want to quote each part so I just use ‘ ‘.

Well, escapism doesn't need to be an improvement over reality, simply an alternative to the individual's reality. So that initial assumption is a flawed building block.

That’s not what’s going to sell tho and the market has self corrected for that.

 

[Elijin]

No I am just lazy I don’t want to quote each part so I just use ‘ ‘.




That’s not what’s going to sell tho and the market has self corrected for that.

A LOT of products heavily refute that, but you do you, tin foil hat man.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No I am just lazy I don’t want to quote each part so I just use ‘ ‘.

That's not going to make your posts more intelligible.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm not interested in what you've concluded from these things, because I don't value your opinion. The experts and researchers did not reach the conclusion you did. On the contrary, we have >6 expett sources here directly contradicting your conclusion.

If your conclusion was sound, you'd expect at least one actual authoritative source to corroborate it. Wouldn't you? Because otherwise its just amateur supposition.

So: Where are your sources for the claim that overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes?

Just say if you can't find any.

It's not what I concluded, it's basic logic. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. I proved the former, that means the latter is true.

Why do you care about authoritative sources? Have you not been around to see how horrible they have been? If you followed what they said to eat (and several still do) for 50+ years, you'd be on the fast track to heart disease. The very things they said to eat were the very things leading to heart disease. I linked to Sarah Hallberg's Ted Talk about her literally saying to not follow the diabetes guidelines because of how horrible and straight up backwards they are. I care about actually learning how things work. If you or the foremost expert tell me I should or shouldn't do XYZ, I will ask "why?" and if you can't explain it to me, then I'm not going to listen to you regardless of your "status".

 

[Silvanus]

It's not what I concluded, it's basic logic. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. I proved the former, that means the latter is true.

No, you haven't proved these things. You provided a source for the mechanic by which sugar in the blood develops insulin resistance, which can lead to type 2 diabetes. That categorically, absolutely does not logically lead to your claim, that therefore overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes.

You've made that leap. It's not the "transitive property", it's an enormous fucking leap of a conclusion. And not a single actual expert supports you in that leap: in fact, dozens of them explicitly contradict it.

So no: I don't want sources saying other things that you've then based your conclusions on, with lots of your own amateur extrapolation in between. I want sources corroborating the actual claim you made.

Just. Say. If. You. Can't. Find. Any.

 

[Trunkage]

A LOT of products heavily refute that, but you do you, tin foil hat man.

You know, I find it funny how some people go on about power fantasies.... but then want their characters to have flaws in an attempt to make it more 'real'

I also dislike how the obsession with power fantasy or flaws becomes disruptive (or overwhelms) to making a character....

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you haven't proved these things. You provided a source for the mechanic by which sugar in the blood develops insulin resistance, which can lead to type 2 diabetes. That categorically, absolutely does not logically lead to your claim, that therefore overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes.

You've made that leap. It's not the "transitive property", it's an enormous fucking leap of a conclusion. And not a single actual expert supports you in that leap: in fact, dozens of them explicitly contradict it.

So no: I don't want sources saying other things that you've then based your conclusions on, with lots of your own amateur extrapolation in between. I want sources corroborating the actual claim you made.

Just. Say. If. You. Can't. Find. Any.

Insulin resistance is a requirement for type 2 diabetes. If you don't allow insulin resistance to happen, how does one get diabetes?

Straight from the ADA:
Over time, though, insulin resistance tends to get worse, and the pancreatic beta cells that make insulin can wear out. Eventually, the pancreas no longer produces enough insulin to overcome the cells' resistance. The result is higher blood glucose levels, and ultimately prediabetes or type 2 diabetes.

Insulin Resistance and Diabetes | ADA

Learn what is, causes of insulin resistance, what does it mean for your health, what can you do about preventing or reversing the conditions.

diabetes.org

 

[Silvanus]

SNIP

I have to emphasise, I really don't care about your logic and how you've drawn your conclusions. I don't find it compelling at all.

The things you've provided sources for aren't the same as the claim you made. No authoritative sources came to the same conclusion from that information as you did. They all contradicted you. You've shown evidence for A, and then attempted to rationalise that A=B, when it's transparently clear that A=/=B.

Do you have sources for your actual claim or not? Not other stuff from which you've made leaps. Your actual claim. That overeating sugar is the sole and direct cause of type 2 diabetes. Do you have any authoritative source backing that claim up?